Best Of

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.

If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…

OK, take 6 months.

Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.

But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.

Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.

2 weeks ago I did a HC trial where all the evidence, including that of the accused, was heard in a day. It can be done. I agree, the kitchen sink approach to prosecution is very rarely the best.

Interesting.

If you can’t prosecute treason in 4 years, then you have Italian levels of TheLawMeansThereIsNoLaw

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.

If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…

OK, take 6 months.

Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.

But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.

Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.

2 weeks ago I did a HC trial where all the evidence, including that of the accused, was heard in a day. It can be done. I agree, the kitchen sink approach to prosecution is very rarely the best.

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.

I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.

I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.

Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.

Most of the active anti renewables protests in North Yorkshire are about the repurposing of good farmland for solar panels. The Yorkshire Green pylon upgrade and extension project seemed to barely raised a murmur.

Seems to be the same in Durham

I noticed a new solar farm being built along the A1M in our county on our drive down to visit family at the weekend.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.

If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…

OK, take 6 months.

Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.

But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.

Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.

The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).

Trump was very lucky to get such a corrupt judge in that case in Florida, but he’s also benefitted from a Supreme Court on his side. All cases against Trump faced tough headwinds because of that.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.

If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…

OK, take 6 months.

Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.

But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.

Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.

The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.

And the sign said "The words of the prophets are
Written on the subway walls, tenement halls
And whispered in the sound of silence"

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.

I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.

I'm not generally super sympathetic towards the younger generations, but I feel like it really must suck in a lot of ways. No freedom to wander anymore, the relentlessness of social media addiction, future housing costs and an entirely unsustainable social care burden to be on their shoulders, on top of much else.

You're assuming they are going to feed us.

I'm just hoping society can hold off any potential collapse for another, say, 50 years, then I'm good.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.

If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…

OK, take 6 months.

Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.

But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.

Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.